May it please the Court. Good morning/afternoon your excellencies.

My name is Princess Joy Quinto, co-counsel for Mr. Vincent Vega,

the defendant in this case, appearing before this Honorable Court with the
hope of being able to aid it in finding for our client’s cause.

Your excellencies, in addition to the arguments presented by my co-

counsel, we respectfully submit that there are no reasonable grounds to
believe that Mr. Vega is criminally responsible for crimes against humanity
of enforced disappearance for the following reasons:

1. The complained act does not qualify as crimes against humanity;

2. The element of actus reus is absent as there was no enforced
disappearance to speak of;
3. The requisite mens rea is wanting as Mr. Vega had no knowledge of
the five-stage plan; and
4. Mr. Vega did not order, solicit or induce the commission of the
alleged crime.

If there are no preliminary questions, may I proceed your excellencies?

Thank you, your excellencies, and may it please the Court.

FIRST, it is our humble position, your excellencies, that the

complained act does not qualify as crimes against humanity.

Art. 7(1) of the Rome Statute provides that for an act to be

considered as crimes against humanity, it must be committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. 1 In
this case, your excellencies, we humbly submit that there was no
widespread attack as the complained conduct was directed only against 70
individuals2 over the five million population of Schwarzwald. Thus, there is
an absence of broad geographical spread of victimization and a large
number of victims3 participating in this case that would confirm the wide
scope of the attack. On the other hand, your excellencies, there was no
1
Art. 7(1), Rome Statute
2
Case, para. 15.
specific plan made nor any policy adopted to address the situation caused
by repeated violent demonstrations. The complained disappearances were
spontaneous and isolated acts4 and therefore, not systematic.

Likewise, your excellencies, there was no attack against a civilian

population. Crimes against humanity do not apply to individuals who, at one
particular point in time, carried out acts of resistance. 5 In this case, your
excellencies, it must be noted that the disruptive refugees were the
individuals behind the protests against the government of Schwarzwald 6
which resulted in increased violence between the refugees, the police, as
well as its citizens.7 On the other hand, your excellencies, the National
Front members were active in many cities in Schwarzwald spreading
disinformation and photo-edited video materials through fake accounts on
various media networks.8 Hence, it is clear that the refugees and the
National Front members do not qualify the civilian victim requirement under
the Rome Statute.

We thus submit, your excellencies, that the complained act does not
qualify as crimes against humanity.

3
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo and Blé Goudé, ICC-02/11-01/11, Situation in the Republic
of Côte d’Ivoire, 14 March 2013, para. 16.
4
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo and Blé Goudé, para. 16-17.
5
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Msksić, et. al., IT-95-13-R61, Review of Indictment Pursuant to
Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 3 April 1996, para. 29.
6
Case, para. 10.
7
Case, paras. 10 and 12(e).
8
Case, para. 12(b).
 SECOND, the element of actus reus under Art. 7(2)(i) is absent in this
case.

The interrelated components of enforced disappearance are

deprivation of liberty and subsequent refusal to acknowledge the same.

In this case, your excellencies, there was no direct or circumstantial

evidence that will support the claim that Mr. Vega deprived the victims of
their liberty nor refused or failed to offer any credible and substantiated
explanations on the fate and whereabouts of the refugees and the National
Front members. Furthermore, your excellencies, it would be highly
improbable to conclude that there was a refusal to give information when
Mr. Vega knows nothing about it.

We further submit, your excellencies, that there is no authorization,

support or acquiescence on the part of Schwarzwald. In this case, although
Mr. Vega was tasked to monitor and assess the situation caused by
repeated violent demonstrations9, this instruction does not equate to
authorization nor acquiescence of the government to further plans, orders
or policies that may be adopted to address the situation. The fact that
Schwarzwald signified its willingness to cooperate fully with the
investigation of the case,10 and subsequently created an independent body
to inquire into the allegations of kidnapping by NIO, 11 bolstered the claim of
absence of authorization, support, or acquiescence of the government in
carrying out the complained acts. It is even worth noting, your excellencies,
that neither the Ministry of the Interior nor any other government agency
had knowledge of the five stage plan. There was no sufficient, clear, and
convincing evidence that Schwarzwald promoted or tolerated 12 the alleged
disappearances of the National Front members and the refugees. The fact
that one of the pictures showed a guard wearing Schwarzwald uniform and

9
Case, para 11.
10
Case, para. 21.
11
Case, para. 23.
12
IACtHR, Bamaca Velasquez v. Guatemala, Petition No. 11.129, Judgement (Merits),
25 November 2000, para. 130.
ski-mask does not show the State’s support or authorization since the
photos are still of doubtful credibility, as it was only leaked by an unknown
source.13

Hence, we humbly submit that there was no enforced disappearance

to speak of.

THIRD, the requisite mens rea under Art. 30 of the Rome Statute is
wanting in this case.

Although Mr. Vega’s position as Head of NIO may per se appear to

be a significant indication from which knowledge of a subordinate’s criminal
conduct can be inferred, such status is not to be understood as a
conclusive criterion but must be supported by additional factors. 14 Absent
such additional factors, Mr. Vega’s knowledge of his subordinate's criminal
conduct cannot be presumed.15

We would also like to emphasize, your excellencies, that Mr. Vega

was not given an opportunity to carefully study the five-stage plan as the
same was executed only after two days from its proposal. 16 Thus, he was
ultimately deprived of the opportunity to determine its necessary
consequences and prevent or avoid any detrimental effect it may cause to
the persons involved.

Due to the absence of knowledge on the part of Mr. Vega on the

execution of the plan, he was therefore neither in a position nor did he have
the capacity to prevent his subordinates for the disappearances of the
National Front members and the refugees. We would also like to point out,
your excellencies, that Mr. Vega immediately manifested to have the case
investigated by the police officers17 upon being informed of the
disappearances allegedly committed by NIO, thus, fulfilling his duty to
punish the acts of his subordinates and prevent subsequent criminal acts.
13
ICC, E-Protocol, ICC-01/09-01/11-438-Anx 1, pp. 7-12.
14
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Orić, IT-03-68-T, Judgment, 30 June 2006, para. 319.
15
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24-T, Judgment, 31 July 2003, para. 460.
16
Case, para. 15.
17
Case, para. 18.
 In view of the foregoing, we humbly submit that the element of mens
rea is wanting in this case.

FINALLY, your excellencies, should this Honorable Court find that

crimes against humanity was committed, it is humble our position that Mr.
Vega cannot be held individually responsible for enforced disappearance
under Art. 25(3)(b) of the Rome Statute.

Your excellencies, when Mr. Vega instructed Ms. Jorg to take all
necessary measures to prevent further instability in the country, 18 it is clear
that Mr. Vega intended that such measures must be carried out within the
ambit of the law and does not in any way mean resorting to unlawful
methods to achieve such end. In addition, your excellencies, there is
neither evidence to support that Mr. Vega specifically ordered, induced, or
solicited the arrest, detention, and secret trials of the arrested and detained
person, nor their fates and whereabouts be kept in secret. Mr. Vega’s
participation is only limited to conducting necessary measures to prevent a
break out of a civil war in Schwarzwald.

Thus, we respectfully submit, your excellencies, that Mr. Vega cannot

be held individually responsible for crime charged.

WITH THESE, your excellencies, we humbly submit and pray that this
Pre-Trial Chamber decline to confirm the charges against Mr. Vega as:
1. The case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court and is
thereby inadmissible;
2. The elements of crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of
Court are absent; and
3. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Vega is
criminally responsible for the commission of the crime charged.

18
Case, para 13.
 WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, your excellencies, this Honorable Court is
meant to be a court of last resort to ensure justice and to end impunity. And
in upholding justice, not only victims are to be considered, but also the
prosecution of the right and most responsible person.

Your excellencies, should this Honorable Court continue to prosecute

our client, Mr. Vega, an innocent man wrongfully accused for the
commission of the crime charged, it will leave the victims without answer
about who is person responsible for the crimes committed against them.

IF THERE ARE NO POINTS OF INQUIRY, thank you, your

excellencies, for your time and indulgence. It has been an honor presenting
before this Honorable Court. May it please the court.
REJOINDER:

THEREFORE, we respectfully request the Pre-Trial Chamber, in

accordance with Art. 61(7)(b) of the Rome Statute, to decline to confirm the
charges brought against Mr. Vega and to order his immediate and
unconditional release.

OTHERWISE, it will run counter to the very purpose of this Honorable

Court as it will be forced not only to prosecute the wrong person for an act
unjustly ascribed as the most atrocious crime committed against the
international community, but also to rule upon a case not as a court of last
resort but as a court exercising appellate jurisdiction over a sovereign state.

The Prosecution argues that... We disagree……

The Defense contends that…
The Defense contention is that...
The Defense wants us to believe
that...
We most respectfully disagree...
We believe otherwise...
On the contrary...
Such argument is not consistent
with...
... The contention is contrary
to...